Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    It may help if you allude to what "Christians" are saying about the
    million man march.  Are you speaking of the Christian
    Coalition...Falwell, Dobson??
    
    Speaking for myself, I believe Marches like this are good.  I just
    happen to think there are some problems with this march...that being:
    
    1. The march appears to be one of race and not principle.
    
    2. The leaders of this march are amongst the most overt racist people I
       have ever had the displeasure of listening to.  
    
    3. There is a definite distinction between the sexes.  Interesting how 
       black males participating seem to believe they are responsible for
       the lack of cohesion in the black community, i.e. spiritual
       leadership.  
    
    What I would really be interested in hearing is this...ESPECIALLY the
    people here in Christian Perspective.  There is no question by the
    standards normally practiced here in C-P, the leadership of this march
    is racist (documentation can be provided at a later time), and they are
    overtly sexist in their thinking.  
    
    Question: What would make these men more virtuous than the
    Promisekeepers?
    
    Think hard!!!!
    
    -Jack

    One thing that Christian Fundementalists and Black Muslim
    fundementalists have in common is the hierarchical order of men over
    women.
    
    Since I am Christian, a wrongful Christian position bothers me.  I will
    fight to eliminate oppression in my own court before fighting
    oppression in another court.  I will support my sisters everywhere in
    their battles against sexism.

    You forgot to mention that this Faracon (sp) guy is also snti-semetic.
    
    Despite the fact that it's racist...
    Despite the fact that it's sexist...
    Despite the fact that it's organizer is anti-semetic...
    
    The message is a good one.  I try to find the good in it and put off
    dealing with the rest until such a time as offense might not be taken.
    
    -dave

	I believe by him not allowing women to march, he is being sexist. If he
truly wants this march to help his people, then why not allow all of his people
to march with him? I haven't heard an explaination for why he would not allow
women to march.

	He also made some comments about Jewish and Asian people that were less
than honorable. That left a bad taste in my mouth.

	I think the premise for having the march is a good one. But I think
excluding part of your people from participating is a bad idea.


Glen

    From someone who goes out of his way to ignore newscasts and
    such....just what is the message supposed to be?
    
    Farakan (?) is not another Martin Luther King, in any sense.

<---steve, who was that directed at?

    Patricia:
    
    It would seem to me that since Black Americans are a big part of this
    community and you reject all sexism and oppression within the
    community, you would speak out not as a Christian but as an American.
    
    -Jack

    The march only shows how faulty liberalism is.

    Well, one of the main problems with liberalism is that liberalism
    comprises of a contingent with a myriad of special interest groups.  
    The groups from time to time conflict with each other and like
    matter/anti matter, disarray can ensue.
    
    Which is why I made the point, the march focuses on race instead of
    principle and hence conflict arises.  Women are left out and the
    messiahs in this case are hatemongers.
    
    -Jack

.8

>      The march only shows how faulty liberalism is.

I don't see the march getting a great deal of support from those who've been
labelled liberals in this file.

Richard

    Actually, I agree that liberalism is only secondary to the real issue.
    The real issue is the overt racism and sexism but the secondary problem
    is that the liberal establishment are remaining tight lipped because
    although they may disagree with the march, the march is supposed to
    strengthen black America.  A dichotomy to say the least!
    
    -Jack

    I was listening to NPR this morning in the gym (sorry Jack, Rush wasn't
    coming in too well :-) ).  Anyway, a civil rights leader of the 60's
    was asked to compare this milion man march to the famous civil rights 
    march held back then.  He said they were NOTHING alike.  The civil
    rights march (he said) was "inclusive" while this one is "exclusive".
    I thought he put that rather well.
    
    But you must remember, that not all who are attending uphold Farakan's
    philosophy regarding women, whites, Jews, etc... .  For example, many
    are Baptists.  But this Farakan set the rules, and those are (I
    believe) in accordance to the laws laid down by the nation of Islam. 
    And that's where the women exclusion thing comes from.  
    
    With regard to the liberalism claim, I perceived Farakan and Company to
    be rather radically conservative insofar as they adhere to
    conservitive Islam ideals and teachings.  I'm really not liberal, but
    could understand why a liberal would reject someone like Farakan who
    promotes racism, sexism and anti-semitism (and someone mentioned that
    he had problems with people or Aisian descent as well?).
    
    I wonder how it went?  
    
    -dave
    

    Jack,
    
    THis group is not doing anything different than fundementalist
    Christians have done.
    
    This march in my opinion is no different than if a group of
    "promisekeepers" were doing exactly the same thing.
    
    I will take a position against one and not the other because I am a
    white christian and therefore am deeply interested in the way white
    christians take a position on political affairs.
    
    I believe in supporting black women and black men in determining for
    themselves what is the best approach to the end of their oppression.

ZZ        I will take a position against one and not the other because I am a
ZZ        white christian and therefore am deeply interested in the way white
ZZ        christians take a position on political affairs.
    
    In other words, take care of your own first.  
        
ZZ        I believe in supporting black women and black men in determining for
ZZ        themselves what is the best approach to the end of their oppression.
    
    Well, I hope this doesn't strain our good rapport Patricia but coming
    from you I find this to be quite disingenuous.  The reason I say this
    is that...yes, I agree that the problem will never be solved by white
    segments of society...liberal or conservative.  This is what I have
    spoke on for years regarding white intervention that is fruitless. 
    Government social engineering and all that...and have been referred to
    as racist by the way for stating the obvious.  
    
    I find it disingenuous because you appear to be making a distinction
    within the community...that being black and white.  From what you've
    said in the past, we are one community and it is up to us as a
    community to help overcome oppression and sexism.  Sounds to me like
    what you're saying is that the million man march is a black event and
    it is up to them to solve their own problems.  I submit to you that the
    march itself further perpetuates the problem and isn't helping in the
    area of oppression of women at all!
    
    I agree with you in principle I'm just surprised to be hearing it from
    you that's all!
    
    -Jack

    Jack my response is consistent with my view of individual
    responsibility for which you and I are also often on different sides of
    the issue.
    
    Individual responsibility means for me to look inward at myself and
    make sure I am living my life in the way that I think is necessary for
    me to live my life.  It means for me to keep looking for the bricks in
    my own eyes before looking for fault with others.  Keeping the focus on
    myself.
    
    As I approach my committment to ever expanding communities, I take the
    same position.  To look inward first and not to be judgemental to those
    outside the individual communities.
    
    I support the principle of self determinism.

    I'm glad you support self determination.  I just find it interesting
    that, quite frankly, you do not seem to identify with Conservative
    Christianity at all...almost to the point where the person of Jesus
    whom I believe and the person whom you believe are two totally
    different deities, i.e. You believe love and God are synonomous and I
    do not!
    
    Taken from 1121.  Promise Keepers
    
    ZZ    Amen, Bob
        
    ZZ    Male chauvanism-  Pure and Simple.
      
    ZZ   yup,  rearing its ugly head!
      
  ZZ  By wrapping up all of its reactionary chauvinism into
  ZZ  secular/religious religious authority.  i.e. Go back and put your women into there
  ZZ  places for the survival of your culture!.
    
  ZZ  Nazism too appealed to real needs of the masses.  Nazism too
  ZZ  appealed to "the God given Superiority" of the Aryan race"
    
  ZZ  Insisting that someone else fulfill a servant role, is domination
  ZZ  and oppression.
    
    Ya know, there isn't anything I disagree with from what you stated
    above...although I believe it is misapplied to spiritual leadership.
    The reason I am copying this is because you claim to identify with
    fundamentalist Christianity more than you do the nation of Islam.  I
    submit that by what you have written in here that the extreme opposite
    is apparent.  And I feel that without meaning to have malice, you are
    selling black women in this country out.  
    
    Really think about it.  The community is the community!
    
    
    -Jack

re Note 1163.12 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     But you must remember, that not all who are attending uphold Farakan's
>     philosophy regarding women, whites, Jews, etc... .  For example, many
>     are Baptists.  But this Farakan set the rules, and those are (I
>     believe) in accordance to the laws laid down by the nation of Islam. 
>     And that's where the women exclusion thing comes from.  
  
        There clearly is a vacuum here, a vacuum of leadership which
        Farakan was more than willing to fill.  

        Back in '63 the foremost black leader was a Christian  -- why
        not today?  Does Christianity offer blacks anything today? 
        Has Christianity (in the US) become a white person's
        religion?

        Bob

    	In general, what was the purpose for the march?  Will there
    	be an outspringing of support groups?  A call for these men
    	to take responsibility for their lives?  To live as examples
    	to their families and neighbors?
    
    	As for women being excluded, this isn't necessarily so.  Women
    	were not called to march, but they were not forbidden to march,
    	and many did to show their support.  In addition there were
    	black female speakers at this march.
    
    
         <<< Note 1163.13 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    This march in my opinion is no different than if a group of
>    "promisekeepers" were doing exactly the same thing.
    
    	A group of Promise Keepers *WILL* be doing the same thing!
    
    	And since it is undeniable that you have been corrected on 
    	your misconceptions of what Promise Keepers is all about,
    	it is therefore clear that you can no longer hide behind the 
    	ignorance of misconception regarding this movement and must 
    	therefore be speaking out of deliberate feminist bigotry.

    The most interesting thing about the march for me is our response. It
    seems that everyone is eager to discredit the march because of its
    leader.  As if a racist cannot have a good idea.  It seems a symptom of
    the binary thinking that we are embracing today.  An entity is either
    good or evil.  It cannot be a mixture of both.  Farakan (?) is a
    racist, therefore nothing good can become of this march.  Yeah, sure.
    
    
    
    	As a total aside, spell checker took my spelling of Minister
    Farakan's name and suggested Firkin.  What is Firkin?

the correspondents which i have heard on swiss and german news media have
been giving the nation of islam and farrakhan an overall favourable coverage.
with one of three african americans coming into conflict with the law (i think
that's the figure mentioned), the nation of islam is the most effective
organisation offering african americans perspective and a way out of no 
hope situations.

the million man march is bound to give the nation of islam and the plight 
of many african americans more visibility. from this point of view the march
is certainly a good thing and will help to mobilise the african american 
community, as that memorable MLK venue did 30 years ago.

i am not so much concerned with farrakhan's reported racism (which presumably 
is a mirror of the undercurrent racism in american society). with hearing
of promise keepers first and now the talk of spiritual reawakening at 
this venue, i must say the one thing which increasingly puzzles me is this
preoccupation of american males, whites and blacks alike, on spirituality, 
spiritual leadership and exclusion of women in such matters! 

if this means that men are now standing up and saying: "look, women have
always played their parts, but we, the men, have essentialy let the side 
down and it's time we begin to play our parts aswell!" then i am all for it, 
but if it means that women are degraded into second place then the message 
s*cks.




andreas.

    I was impressed by the Boston Globe coverage of the March and I agree
    with the note a couple back stating that the inability to accept
    Faraher's leadership may be a result of binary thinking.
    
    From what I read, there March is a real positive experience for those
    who participate in it.  From what I read, there is a great diversity of
    men responding to the March out of a sense of black pride and out of
    the need to get together as a huge group of black men.  I believe that
    there is a lot of positive things about it.
    
    I abhor all oppression.  I support all positive attempts to develop
    group identity.  I can empathize with Black anger.
    
    I do not support anti semitism in any form.  This march is not about
    Farraher, and it is not really  about the black Muslim movement.  It is
    about black men getting together and affirming their own identity as
    black men.
    
    That is positive.
    
    Patricia

ZZ    It is
ZZ    about black men getting together and affirming their own identity
ZZ    as black men.
        
ZZ        That is positive.
    
    Patricia:
    
    You have an agenda, you are inconsistent, I have a hard time with your
    credibility right now!
    
    -Jack

    re .22
    
    Huh?
    
    I think Patricia is quite clear, as well as consistant.
    
    meg

.8

    The march only shows how faulty liberalism is.

Huh?
---------------------------------
.9 

    Well, one of the main problems with liberalism is that liberalism
    comprises of a contingent with a myriad of special interest groups.  
    The groups from time to time conflict with each other and like
    matter/anti matter, disarray can ensue.

Jack, are you claiming that conservatives are united along a single front, 
i.e. not made up of a myriad of special interest groups, such as the gun 
lobby, the christian lobby, big business, etc?
-----------------------------------
.18
        In general, what was the purpose for the march?  Will there
        be an outspringing of support groups?  A call for these men
        to take responsibility for their lives?  To live as examples
        to their families and neighbors?

The snippets of speeches I heard were primarily directed at exactly that 
message.

    How's that?  Her bias is definitely showing.  The march for angry
    blacks is a good thing (to which I happen to agree that the march was a
    positive step), but the idea of Christian men getting together to
    affirm there desire to serve God is bigotry...Bigotry...BIGOTRY!
    
    Read the Promisekeepers string and tell me if you see consistency. 
    What I see is Patricia has her pet victims and her pet oppressors.
    I see little objectivity in your thinking Patricia.
    
    -Jack 

    Steve:
    
    Yes, the republican party does have special interest groups but the
    conflict level is far lower!
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Angry Blacks?  I think someone else's agenda is showing rather than
    Patricia's.  Thie MMM is no different to me than PK, I have the same
    problems with both, as well as seeing that they have positive goals in
    many cases.  I have the same problems with most exclusionary groups.l
    
    As for the Republicans, you are right they have fewer conflicts, as
    they have run the people who disagree with some of the ideology, (like
    my life-long Republican mother) off.
    
    meg

	Mods, please change the title to "The 400,000 Man March".  :-)

    ZZ    Angry Blacks?  I think someone else's agenda is showing rather than
    ZZ    Patricia's.  
    
    I didn't make reference to angry blacks, Patricia did!

i can see the progression.

black anger 
angry blacks
angry black men

would this then legitimise the angry white men?

do whites have a reason for anger.

white anger sounds silly.



andreas.

   I watched some news reports and film of the march on CNN this morning,
   and the men there did not seem particularly angry. Most seemed to view
   this as a very positive experience, and an awakening to the fact that
   they can and should do something to support their people, their wives &
   children. I've been hearing stats for so long on the huge of numbers of
   black families that are single-parented by the mother with no father or
   husband in the family picture and the negative impact that has on the
   children and communities that I look at this as a postive step for
   African American families. What I hope will not happen is further racial
   division or perpetuation of Farakan's anti-semitic rhetoric and activities.
   We are all affected by each other, we all share in the welfare or destitu-
   tion of our country.

   Leslie

Ya know what I dislike about this whole thing the most?  It's all centered
around race.... again!   The societal problems addressed in the march are
not isolated to blacks, they're problems we all have.  Why couldn't this 
march have included anyone and everyone who's willing to listen and help?  
I mean a march like this which calls for blacks specifically, and men
specifically only adds to the divisivness that's plagued the world since
history was recorded.  By it's very nature, it alienates all non-blacks. 
This march should have been for AMERICANS to address AMERICAN problems and
have nothing to do with race or gender.  The civil rights march on
Washington back in the 60's was beautiful because EVERYONE was welcome and
it was about rights fo ALL Americans.  This value of this march was 
diminished to the extent of it's exclusivity.

As for the binary thinking message and replies made eralier, I'll play
devil's advocate on that one and disagree (to a point).  I too believe
that there was good value in the intent of the march.  But it was dimished
BECAUSE it came from Farrakhan.  Hitler had some good ideas too
(vaccination programs for German children for example), but it was right 
not to pat him on the back for those "good deeds" while he was
systematically exterminating millions in the camps.  Until and unless
Farrakhan backs away from some of his stands, I'm sorry, I can't support 
his "good deeds" with much enthusiasm.  I thought Clinton's comments about
the march were right on line in this regard.  
     
-dave

================================================================================
Note 1163.21                  The Million Man March                     21 of 31
POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"              21 lines  17-OCT-1995 09:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    From what I read, there March is a real positive experience for those
>    who participate in it.  From what I read, there is a great diversity of
>    men responding to the March out of a sense of black pride and out of
>    the need to get together as a huge group of black men.  I believe that
>    there is a lot of positive things about it.
    
>    I abhor all oppression.  I support all positive attempts to develop
>    group identity.  I can empathize with Black anger.
    
>    I do not support anti semitism in any form.  This march is not about
>    Farraher, and it is not really  about the black Muslim movement.  It is
>    about black men getting together and affirming their own identity as
>    black men.
    
    Jack,
    
    You quoted me as saying "The March for Angry Blacks is a good thing!"
    
    
    Can you see the difference!
    
    Anger is a normal human emotion.  Anger is the legitimate response to
    all oppression.  Anger can be the most powerful emotion we have.  We
    often do not do anything to change something that is wrong until we get
    angry enough at what is wrong.
    
    I do not in any way see the march as the march of Angry blacks.  Pride
    is the emotion that I see being exhibited by the march!
    
    That is positive.
    
    Patricia

    ZZ  I abhor all oppression.  I support all positive attempts to develop
   ZZ >    group identity.  I can empathize with Black anger.
    
    I took this as an inference toward the march...angry black men. 
    Apparently I misunderstood.
    
    I still fail to see why your remarks toward the Promisekeepers border
    on violent while you feel the same "sexism" as you put it is a good
    thing.  I don't understand the difference.
    
    -Jack

jack, are you perhaps in the assumption-making-mode which cindy has 
already accused you of? ;-) 

patricia didn't say that the sexism is a good thing. 





andreas.

    dave - 
    
    You are not playing devil's advocate.  You said the march was
    diminished, not discredited nor discounted like Bill Bennet said on CNN
    last night.  Big difference.  Or is it that I agree with you.
    
    As far as the race issue is concered, since their lives are genuinely
    and adversely affected by other people's response to their race, it
    seems a valid criteria.  Also, the message of the march was a call for
    those black men who are not being responsible to start being
    responsible.  This does not dismiss Farakan's racism.  It is just a
    fist step.
    

    It seemed like the march built a sense of cohesiveness.  I see it as a
    good thing if it applied properly, i.e. building stronger families,
    etc.  
    
    Maybe somebody can answer me a question though.  Jesse Jackson keeps 
    talking about reparations.  What do I owe him, why do I owe him....
    
    

Re .36

I just view Farrakhan as a dangerous man.  I see his goals as being very 
different than those of a truely great leader like Martin Luther King 
Jr. who's voice rang true when he spoke out against division and segregation.
His dream was a color blind American.  He addressed racism as an American 
(not black) problem that all Americans had to work on.  And so, I believe 
that if racism is a problem here in America, then it's my problem too.  And
it's the problem of the Aisian American woman who lives down the road, and
the young white couple who just move in across the way, and the elderly black 
gentleman who lives next to them.  Segregation and racism is everyone's
problem and until we can learn to address it together, it'll remain a
problem.  

Farrakhan's messages in the march were admirable.  But dammit, why did he 
have to foster raciam and gender segregation and division in the process.  
It's like having a beautiful painting delivered to your house... in a
garbage truck.

-dave         

why was the march a male only event?





andreas.

    What keeps going through my mind in all of this is that you can't be an
    antisemite and claim to serve God or be a Christian.  Yeshua was a Jew. 
    He was not some blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan.  This applies to Islam
    as well.  Hate has no place in God's gospel.  It's no wonder the
    Islamic nations are some of the most oppressed in the world.
    
    Mike

.37
        
>    Maybe somebody can answer me a question though.  Jesse Jackson keeps 
>    talking about reparations.  What do I owe him, why do I owe him....
    
"The sins of the fathers...."

Richard

    If I were a woman who pushed for women's rights in the world and
    considered the overt sexism and oppression in Islamic nations, then I
    would certainly believe that sexism is the hingepin for not allowing
    women at the march.  It's as plain as the nose on your face.
    
    -Jack

    Sorry Richard, my fathers were in Scotland at the time.  Therefor I am
    exempt and truly wish Jesse Jackson would keep his non colorblind
    opinions to himself!
    
    -Jack

    By the way, Jackson is doing as I've been accused of.  He is stating
    things based on assumptions that aren't really there.  Right Cindy?  
    
    -Jack

>   If I were a woman who pushed for women's rights in the world and
>   considered the overt sexism and oppression in Islamic nations, then I
>   would certainly believe that sexism is the hingepin for not allowing
>   women at the march.  It's as plain as the nose on your face.
    

jack, that's another assumption you're making in here and not an answer.

surely the organisers (not all members of nation of islam i take it) 
must have stated a reason why this was a man only event.

why was this a man only event?



andreas.

>    By the way, Jackson is doing as I've been accused of.  He is stating
>    things based on assumptions that aren't really there.  Right Cindy?  
    
    ...and some claim women state feelings as fact! ;-)

    Okay...then why were women discouraged from attending?
    
    Hint:  You can't use the word leadership in your answer!

i offered one suggestions in .20. maybe the men feel/are responsible for
the state of affairs which they demonstrate against?

surely the organisers must have announced why this was a man only event?

i just didn't hear it in the news coverage. 

let me in on it. why were women excluded?




andreas.

Although I may be wrong, I thought I caught a hint in one of the newscast
that women in Islam are not to take a public role, that the reason for
excluding women was "religious".

Leslie

    Kind of like, Women are being oppressed for religious reasons.

    Re .43 
    
    >>Sorry Richard, my fathers were in Scotland at the time...
    
    And mine were elsewhere as well.  But I don't believe bloodline lineage
    was the sort of thing he was talking about.  I think he meant "all
    whites owe all blacks for faults in the near and distant past".
    
    I happen to disagree with the whole notion of "reparations" not based 
    on personal accountability.  If I did something to harm someone, then
    fine, let's sit down and sort it out.  But reparations applied to the
    general non-black public is (IMO) crap.  We saw how well that worked 
    with Germany in the 30's.  
    
    
    -dave

   <<< Note 1163.20 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>if this means that men are now standing up and saying: "look, women have
>always played their parts, but we, the men, have essentialy let the side 
>down and it's time we begin to play our parts aswell!" then i am all for it, 
    
    	This is one of the simplest and most concise descriptions I've
    	seen!

    	The more I look at what I see/saw at the rally, the more I
    	hold out hope that this will be a positive event in the history
    	of this nation.
    
    	If it fizzles into a one-time experience, then it was a waste.
    
    	If it finds itself following LF's own reverse-racism, then it
    	will be a dangerous thing.
    
    	But my guess is that it WILL be an awakening for many people on
    	many levels, most important of which is the message that one
    	speaker said (not a direct quote) "Let men put down their guns
    	and their drugs, and instead pick up their children..."

re .52

>>if this means that men are now standing up and saying: "look, women have
>>always played their parts, but we, the men, have essentialy let the side 
>>down and it's time we begin to play our parts aswell!" then i am all for it, 
>    
>    	This is one of the simplest and most concise descriptions I've
>    	seen!


if that's the case, ie. that men (not women) have generally made a mess 
of things by letting the side down then this kind of disqualifies men. 
how are they supposed to better themselves without listening to their women? 
since they have already proven that they are not capable. wouldn't you
expect alot of women speakers at the event if the men really wanted to
learn to play their roles?



andreas.

    	Sigh...
    
    	Andreas, not all men have dropped the ball, but far more than not
    	have, so men as a class have.
    
    	Some men are still out there to show the others where they are
    	failing.  Some men are still out there to reintroduce to the rest
    	of us the Biblical principles we've been ignoring.

ah, i get it. men teaching men.

the idea has its merits.




andreas.

ps. according to how they are portrayed in some movies i've seen, it seems 
    that nation of islam is pretty good at this concept 

    I've heard some say that men (different from women) have dropped the
    ball and that they need women (different from men) to help them pick
    it up again because the women haven't dropped the ball.  Now I suppose
    the parallel argument is that blacks (different from whites) have
    dropped the ball so I suppose they should look to whites (different
    from blacks) to help them pick it back up agian because they never drop
    the ball. ?? ? ??
    
    Everybody drops the ball, from time to time.  It's got nothing to do
    with race or gender or ethnicity.  And if the ball's been dropped,
    anyone who cal help pick it back up again should be welcomed.
    That too should have nothing to do with race, gender or ethnicity.
    
    I think the problem lies in trying to make sense out of the whole thing
    from the perspective of group interrelations (black/white, men/women,
    short/tall, blue-eyes/brown-eyes, etc...).  Failure to come to resolution 
    on the terms of group interactions is just testimony to what I've been 
    saying about dissolving the group divisions before attacking the
    problems. King was right.  Faraknah was  right in his objective for the
    march, but wrong in choosing his vehicle of delivery.
    
    -dave

.43

>    Sorry Richard, my fathers were in Scotland at the time.  Therefor I am
>    exempt and truly wish Jesse Jackson would keep his non colorblind
>    opinions to himself!

I am not a literalist, Jack.

And who is the one who is always bringing up the "Founding Fathers"?  These are
certainly not your ancestors either.

Richard

BTW, according to NPR, the march organizers are filing a civil rights suit
claiming that the Park Service is being racist by publishing the 400,000
participants number.

/john

i read yesterday in my daily paper that there were women speakers present
at the venue and that quite a few men brought their significant others.
in the analysis of the papers washington correspondent the march was a 
success despite of farrakhan. apparently most african american opinion makers 
judged that the goals of the event were more important than the man who 
organised it. since farrakhan could count on only limited support for his
person.



andreas.

ZZ    And who is the one who is always bringing up the "Founding Fathers"? 
ZZ    These are certainly not your ancestors either.
    
    Actually, I am part English also, but I didn't tell you that.
    
    The Founding Fathers built the framework for our government.  I as a
    citizen submit to the authority of the Constitution as a citizen. 
    Therefore, I am entitled to reap the benefits and resposibilities
    of the government.
    
    Jesse Jackson has a beef with ghosts...people of years past.  White
    skin does not classify a group as perpetrators of past wrongs...any
    more than anybody here of German assent is resposible for the
    holocaust.
    
    Jesse Jackson will NEVER taste Gods peace in his current course.  Jesse
    Jackson has some sin to deal with in my opinion.  He needs to get off
    the slavery kick and move ahead, live in the present, and contribute
    what he can in order to make life better for those he serves.
    
    -Jack

    I don't think being color-blind means to turn a blind eye.
    
    Richard
    

    The Reverend Earl Jackson, a local talk show host, African American
    whose grandparents were slaves in Virginia, graduated with a Phd. from
    Harvard University.  He grew up in a broken home and was supported by
    his mother.  He is also Pastor of a church in South Boston.
    
    "Black America needs to get off the slavery kick.  They need to put
    what has happened behind them, and move on.  The civil rights movement
    is dead and needs to be eulogized; black America needs to move on.  The
    greatest importance is for black America to get back into the church,
    to fill the church and trench themselves into the life and concepts of
    Jesus Christ."
    
    Couldn't have said it better myself.  
    
    -Jack

    Martin Luther King said the greatest opposition he faced in pursuing
    civil rights came from American black churches.
    
    Richard
    

    Which is really an interesting phenomenon.  Part of human nature is the
    Resistance to Change.  Is the resistance that strong?!
    
    

    The Black Avenger had a few interesting things to say about this too. 
    Similar to the quote Jack just entered.
    
    Mike

This  is a commentary from Family Research Council's
www page

I'm Gary Bauer for Washington Watch. 

We have had some time now to reflect on the Million-Man
 March on Washington. Here are some impressions. This
 march was almost certainly larger than the civil rights march
 of 1963 that heard Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a
 Dream" speech. Moreover, this march was mostly men,
 by all accounts, decent men who closed their day reciting a
 pledge to renounce violence and rebuild their communities. 

But this good news is not the whole story. I searched the
 media in vain for any full account of the speech by Louis
Farrakhan. It was two-and-a-half hours long. While Dr. King
 spoke of his "dream" of racial equality, what Minister
 Farrakhan spoke of was a "nightmare" of racial hatred.
In words that have to be read to be believed, he invoked
 everything from the height of the Washington Monument
 to numerical inscriptions on the Capitol Building to describe a Masonic
conspiracy by white supremacists against black Americans. 

America has racial healing to accomplish, but Farrakhan
 cannot be its source. To reach that goal, we must live Dr.
 King's dream, not Farrakhan's nightmare. 



(not used with permission, but from their home page)

Additionally, I can't help contrast this march to the Promise
Keepers rallies.   Similar aims in one way, which I applaud.
But, at least one difference.  PK has a stated aim (one of 7)
of racial reconciliation.  The undercurrent of the Nation of
Islam is one of racial division.   So, PK is inclusive, this
 march was exclusive.

Don Randall

    What is the URL for the Family Research Council's
    www page?
    
    Thank you,
    
    /Greg

They are hosted at the "Town Hall"

http://www.townhall.com/townhall/FRC/welcome.html

    The Family Research Council, that's the one headed up by a man named
    Cameron?  The one moving it's headquarters to Colorado Springs?  Or do
    I have it mixed up with another organization?
    
    Richard
    

    Here is the bottom line.  Farrakham thinks white people are vermon and 
    Jews are blood sucking leaches.  Farrakham believes white people are a
    "biproduct of excrement."  I find it difficult to believe that a
    leapord would change his spots this quickly.
    
    I believe the march itself was not a bad thing, depending on the
    loyalties of the marchers.  It seems to me there are a lot better role
    models to follow other than this guy.
    
    -Jack

.67 Don Randall

	Islam is one of racial division.   So, PK is inclusive, this
 	march was exclusive.

I would be much more inclined to say that Farrakhan is exclusive, not 
necessarily the marchers.

Steve

    The silence is absolutely deafening from our beloved participants who
    usually rag on White male oppression!

re Note 1163.73 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     The silence is absolutely deafening from our beloved participants who
>     usually rag on White male oppression!
  
        Perhaps they don't think you're exhibiting "White male
        oppression"?

        Bob

    Not referring to me directly.  I am speaking of the general discussion
    of society and how "oppression" seems to apply to specific groups and
    not to others!
    
    -Jack

re .73


talking of silence. i expected to hear more of that undercurrent and overt
racism which farrakhan reacts to. the man is obviously on the wrong track. 
with so many supporting voices in this topic, MLK's dream of 30 years ago 
will one day become reality.

if i was american i'd say, let's keep working on it.



andreas.

              <<< Note 1163.70 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

>    The Family Research Council, that's the one headed up by a man named
>    Cameron?  The one moving it's headquarters to Colorado Springs?  Or do
>    I have it mixed up with another organization?
    
	You're thinking of the Family Research Institute, Richard.
    
    	With all of these organizations touting Family in their
    	names, you'll soon need a scorecard.
    
    	CFV (Colorado for Family Values) relies heavily on the Family
    	Research Institute (the new one coming to town.)  Focus on the
    	Family is more closely associated with the Family Research
    	Council, and has made statements to distance themselves from
    	the Family Research Institute.
    
    	Whew...
    
    	None of them are associated with the diamond dealer in Denver
    	named Family Jewels.

>    Bottom line for me is that this March has very little to do with
>    Farrahar.

Isn't he no longer with DEC?

/john

    Bottom line for me is that this March has very little to do with
    Farrakham.  This march has to do with whether we as a country are going
    to get on with the Civil Rights movement which has screeched to a stop.
    
    As a  white woman, I  decide  whether I am  going to take a stand
    for the equality of all people, or  a stand against that equality.
    
    Their is no neutral position.
    
                                    Patricia

    Say what?
    

    Farrahar used to be a VP at DEC.
    
    Farrakham is the spelling!

    
    re .78

    > Bottom line for me is that this March has very little to do with
    > Farrakham. [sic] 

    That depends on who you listen to. I have heard so many different spins
    on what this march means that one can find support for any angle one
    chooses to take. FWIW, Farrakhan himself insists it is impossible to
    separate the himself from the march. In his mind the he *is* the
    message of the march.

    I do, however, find home in the men, however.

    Eric

Farrakhan.

NNTTM.

    
    During his life, Dr. Martin Luther King was not so universally admired
    as he is today.  The media of the day often portrayed him as inciting
    riots.  Comparing any living man with the nostalgia of a legend is
    not fair to the living man.  Besides, Farakhan can be skewered on his
    own without comparison.

    Speaking of comparisons, PK followers attend because of their religion. 
    The marchers were their for other reasons.  The vast majority of
    African-Americans are Christian, and the march didn't change that. 
    [Farakhan may believe he is the march, but what do the other 999,999
    men think?]  I have a friend who's partner is black.  I am amazed at
    the stories they tell.  It's not overt racism like in the past, but
    covert.  It's not bullets in the face, but rubber bands.  They don't
    kill but they sting like crazy.  And over time, they do real damage.

    Two stories that stick with me:

    1)  Tim, who is white, went out with Robert, who is black, and a bunch
    of Robert's friends who were also black.  There were five of them in
    the car, with Tim sitting in the middle in the back seat.  They were
    driving down one of the main drags, and got pulled over by a cop. 
    After the officer got the license and registration of the driver, he
    ordered every out of the car.  A second cop took Tim aside and asked
    him if he were there of his own free will.  He offered to drive Tim
    home so he wouldn't have to ride with "those people."

    2)  Tim and Robert were going out to eat with Robert's parents.  Tim
    drove and let everyone off at the front door of the restaurant, and
    went to park the car. When he entered the restaurant, he noticed his
    family waiting in the waiting area which was off to one side. The host
    then came up to him asking the usual questions.  "How many?"  "Smoking
    or not," etc.  He answered and said he was waiting for the rest of the
    folks to park their car.  He was immediately given a table.  It turns
    out that his family had asked for the same kind of table, but were told
    they had to wait until everyone in their party had arrived.  

    Question:
    
    How does a civil rights movement change those types of occurances in
    the previous note?  I believe a paradigm shift is long overdue;
    however, I'm at a loss as to how legislation is going to do this.
    
    -Jack

    Good examples that sound very realistic to me!

 ZZ      Good examples that sound very realistic to me!
    
    Without a doubt.  This sort of thing does happen.  But again how does a
    civil rights movement solve this problem?

    I suppose by slowly influencing public opinion. I, for one, do not
    think apartheid would have ended in South Africa when it did if it
    had not been for the publicity the civil rights movement there drew.
    South Africa still has a long, long way to go, and so do we.

    Leslie

re Note 1163.85 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     How does a civil rights movement change those types of occurances in
>     the previous note?  I believe a paradigm shift is long overdue;
>     however, I'm at a loss as to how legislation is going to do this.
  
        Well, I know that I'm raising a red flag here, but programs
        such as Affirmative Action, while they do nothing directly to
        address the underlying racism, do ensure that minorities are
        represented in the economic and academic life of the nation
        in numbers roughly proportional to their percentage of the
        population.

        If you let this work a few generations, it just may be that
        some of the underlying racism abates.  If you don't do things
        such as this, you invite a return to the jim crow days,
        albeit without the support of racist legislation.

        Bob

    
    There was an attorney names Rice.  She started the practice of
    interviewing potential jurors using interviewing techniques.  I saw an
    interview with her on 60 minutes a few years back.  She said that for
    racial issues, she wasn't looking to exclude racists.  Rather, she
    wanted those who held some racist beliefs or attitudes to recognize
    those beliefs in order to recognize and neutralize them before they
    could impact actions.

    Civil rights movements and legislation helps to keep in our minds the
    evil racism is.  It will not change peoples hearts, but may very well
    change their actions.  That is a start.

    In my friend's two real-life experiences [hence the genuine quality
    about them, Patricia] that I outlined, I believe (as well do they) that
    the cop was an overt racist.  That in a group of black men, he could
    only see criminals.  The host at the restaurant, though, was more than
    likely unaware that she treated the two groups differently.

    I am a racist.  I struggle with my racism more often that I care to
    admit.  The good news is that racism loses in the struggle.  As I learn
    and grow, the struggle has become easy and infrequent.  Then I enter a
    new depth.

    	Jay